TOK Presentations: What is your Real Life Situation & your Knowledge Question?

The fundamental question of the IB Theory of Knowledge class is How do we know?  We explore different methods and purposes of creating knowledge, weighing their advantages and disadvantages, their limitations and possibilities.  How knowledge is created in a biology class is different from creating knowledge in a literature class.  How knowledge is created in economics is different from how a tribal member knows which medicinal plant to use in a given situation.

Some general questions regarding the construction of knowledge are:

How do we justify our knowledge?  

What is allowed as good evidence?

What constitutes an acceptable explanation?

How do we know which model is the most accurate?

Knowledge questions are at the very center of the class.  An explicit aim of TOK is that the student learn to "formulate, evaluate, and attempt to answer knowledge questions."  At first many students find all this extraordinarily difficult.  Let's take a look at the criteria for Knowledge Questions.

The IB Course Guide gives clear criteria for Knowledge Questions.  They are:

1. Open-ended questions.  These are questions that have more than one plausible answer.  You must explain and justify your answer.  It does not inevitably mean that a question is irresolvable.  One answer may be more correct than another.
2. Explicitly about knowledge. 
3. Expressed in TOK terms.  These are a selection of terms:  Belief, Certainty, Evidence, Explanation, Fact, Hypothesis, Ideology, Interpretation, Judgement, Knowledge, Law, Paradigm, Theory.
4. Clear in the relationships between these terms

As we begin the first round of TOK Presentations, can we place our Real Life Situations and Knowledge Questions online below?  Please record these by 27 March.

Writing an Ethics Case: A Group Project

In class we have made some use of cases written by students and faculty of Santa Clara University.  The cases were placed someone before a difficult ethical decision in a real life situation.   Our task in the next two classes will be to write an ethics case based on our own experiences.  We will break into small groups and each group will write a case.  After finishing the project, we will use them as the basis of discussion in class.

Step 1: Brainstorm

What are ethical dilemmas that possibly could confront you as a student, as young person, as a son or daughter, as a citizen?  Brainstorm a list of five to ten possibilities.   The dilemmas should be personal and contemporary.  The situations should be real, not commonplace situations that others will evaluate in a quick and simple way.  It can be a dilemma you have encountered. 

As you evaluate the list of dilemmas to select one for development, eliminate the ones for which you have no personal experience or for which you have no personal familiarity through another person.  Choose a compelling problem that is difficult to decide.  

Step 2: Write a rough draft

Write a rough draft.  Make clear these three elements:

1.       Who is the protagonist?

2.       What issue does he or she face?

3.       What circumstances complicate the situation?

Step 3: Refine the story and think of two questions

Now revise and edit the story.  What details could bring out more nuances or complexity?  Is the choice too clear-cut?  Think of two questions that will stimulate thought.

Step 4: Turn in everything and post on the blog

Turn in your brainstorming, your rough draft, and your finished case.  Post your case on the class blog with the first names of all the people in your group. 

TOK Essay: Final Checklist

At this point I have read the first drafts of the TOK Essay and forwarded my commentary.  Next week we will spend a class or two in individual conferences so that I can explain my comments, if this is necessary. Then we will move forward in the last classes of the Ethics unit.

The final draft of the TOK Essay will be uploaded to the IBO website on January 21 (January 22 if your section is on that day).

Before submitting the final draft of the TOK Essay, let's look at some questions to evaluate your final draft.

Introduction

• Did you derive a knowledge issue directly related to the prescribed title?
• Did you directly answer the question posed in the prescribed title?
• Did you specify the ways of knowing or areas of knowledge that you will focus upon?
• Did you articulate the thesis you will argue?
• Does the reader have an idea of the path you will take in the argument?
• Is your introduction brief and concise?  Is every word necessary?

Body

• Have you defined key terms?
• Do not use a standard dictionary or a TOK textbook for definitions!
• Is your paper structured as an argument (a debate)? 
• Are you arguing your thesis consistently?
• Are you making assertions?
• Do you have reasons?
• Do you have evidence?
• Have you included strong counterarguments?
• Have you refuted the counterarguments?
• Have you considered other perspectives (e.g., cultural, philosophical, academic, gender, etc.)?
• Have you demonstrated an understanding of the complexity of the issue?
• Are you making distinctions within the ways of knowing or areas of knowledge?
• Are you making connections to the ways of knowing or areas of knowledge?
• Have you related the knowledge issue to your own life?  
• Are your examples personal or are they clichés? 
• Have you compared and contrasted the results of your analysis of an issue involving two areas of knowledge or ways of knowing?  Have you unwittingly written two short unrelated essays about a knowledge issue in two areas of knowledge or ways of knowing? 
• Have you identified the implications or assumptions of your argument?  In other words, do you clearly see where your argument comes from and where it is going?
• Have you cited the sources for specific information?  Are the sources in correct format (as used in the Extended Essay)?  Do you also have a bibliography in correct format? (Nota Bene: not all essays need sources)
• Is your language clear?  Are you consistently using TOK terms (claim, issue, belief, knowledge, et al.)?
• Have you signposted for the reader?  Have you explicitly made clear the elements of your argument and your consideration of counterarguments?

 Conclusion

• Have you properly summarized your findings?
• Have you explained what your argument has established?

Final Considerations

• Have you met the word limit (1200-1600 words)?
• Do you have 12 point font?
• Have you double-spaced the text?
• Have you put the prescribed title at the top of the first page?

A Last Word on Authenticity

The TOK Essay must be entirely your own work.  Teachers, tutors, or family members are not permitted to revise or edit the essay.  The course guide for the Theory of Knowledge stipulates:

If a preliminary draft is produced, the teacher may read and comment on it, but is not permitted to edit it for the student. Only one draft may be presented to the teacher before the final essay is submitted. In general, teachers’ comments should be about the essay as a whole, although it is acceptable to question or comment upon a particular paragraph. Where a student is writing in a second or third language, more flexibility may be appropriate: for example, the teacher may indicate that a particular sentence or word usage is difficult for the reader. However, here as elsewhere, it is the student’s responsibility to correct mistakes and make improvements.

Authenticity

Teachers must ensure that essays are the student’s own work. If there is doubt, authenticity should be checked by a discussion with the student about the content of the essay submitted and a scrutiny of one or more of the following:

• the student’s initial proposal and outline
• the first draft of the essay
• the student’s references and bibliography for the essay, where appropriate
• the style of the writing, which may reveal obvious discrepancies.

It should be made clear to students that they will be required to sign a written declaration when submitting the essay, to confirm that it is their own work. In addition, students must be made aware that their teachers will also be required to verify the claim made in the declaration.

Helpful Reading for TOK: Suggestions

If one wanted to deepen one's understanding of Theory of Knowledge, where would one look?  I have a couple of suggestions.

First, while one can stumble upon small online islands of information in surfing the internet, one more substantial site is theoryofknowledge.net.  It covers all the different aspects of the course and goes into sufficient detail, being neither too superficial nor too erudite that one is left behind coughing in a cloud of library dust. 

Next, I very highly recommend Nigel Warburton's Philosophy: The Basics.  A senior lecturer at the Open University in the UK, Warburton writes with admirable clarity and has the natural teacher's gift of making complicated ideas understandable.

Another great resource is Stephen Law's The Philosophy Gym, a book presenting a series of playful and imaginative dialogues on philosophical problems and issues.  Law is on the faculty of Heythrop College, originally a Jesuit school and since 1970 a part of the University of London.  Like Warburton, he writes lucidly about philosophical problems and makes them understandable and accessible. 

Julian Baggini has written many books, but Making Sense:  Philosophy behind the Headlines seems expressly written for TOK.  He explores philosophical issues raised by news stories.  As the publishing blurb states, "The discussions interweave philosophy and current affairs to create a compelling narrative that challenges how we make sense both of the world around us and of our own beliefs."

Baggini, Law, and Warburton have written other accessible books on philosophy, and also have websites and blogs.  Inevitably perhaps, but also very fortunately, they are more and more present on Youtube through recorded lectures and debates.  Civil, insightful, and always clear, they are very enjoyable to listen to, even if one may disagree with what is said. 

This extra reading is not mandatory, BUT if one wanted to pursue many of the topics and issues further, one could dip into these books and continue a journey in philosophical thought.

Show More

Show Less

Alone Together

Recently in class we watched a TED talk by psychologist and sociologist Sherry Turkle, who is a professor at MIT.  She studies the interaction of human beings with technology, and uses hundreds of interviews to gather data for analysis and interpretation.  Her most recent book is Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (2011).  Her TED Talk reviews some of the findings of this recent book, raises some interesting questions, and makes some challenges.

Please write a reflection on the talk below.  Some questions for consideration (you need not answer any of them, these are just to stimulate thought!):

• Do you agree with what she says?  If not, would you say that her sampling of people was too limited (how does it break down, for example, by age group?  Should she have interviewed more teenagers?)?  Did she fail to take into account alternative points of view?
• When did you get your first cell phone?  Do you think that it has generally enriched or impoverished your daily life?  Does it distract you from your life or connect you to it?
• What challenges does she make at the end of the talk?
• In relating her research, Dr. Turkle is very emotional.  Clearly this work means a great deal to her.  How do you think empathy is present in her research and interpretation of her findings?
• Does her "pre-technological" value system (her values having been formed before the advent of personal computing and mobile devices) precondition her to view the more intense use of technology in a negative manner? How have values guided her interpretation of the data?
• Do the human sciences put more emphasis on emotion, empathy, and values?

Human Science 1

Introduction

Let's try to answer three questions:

1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? 
................. cents

2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
 ................. minutes

3. In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch  doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?
................. days

These three very short questions have sent smoke reeling through the ears of many people, as if mental gears were colliding, and in fact mental gears are colliding.  This test, along with other experiments, have persuaded many psychologists that human beings have two systems of thinking.  The first is quick, intuitive, emotional, and given to generalizing.  The second is slow, deliberate, logical, and given to making distinctions.

Many stumble on the three questions because System 1 leads them quickly and directly to the obvious and incorrect answer.  Those few who get them correct have resolved the problems with System 2.  These two systems of thinking have recently been explained in an engaging book entitled Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 (I suggest reading his short autobiography at the Nobel site!).

Have you learned something about human beings? 

Welcome to the world of Human Science!

What are the human sciences?

The area of human sciences encompasses a large number of disciplines that includes  anthropology, archaeology, economics, education, game theory, law, linguistics, political science, sociology, and psychology.  These disciplines seek to apply the scientific method to understand how and why human beings think and feel, behave and interact, as they do.

But unfortunately the scientific method, which already gives rise to issues when applied to natural phenomena, has even more issues when applied to the study of human beings.  The Austrian philosopher Karl Popper argued very well that a scientific theory should be falsifiable and if it were not, then that theory was pseudoscience.  Therefore, psychoanlysis was pseudoscience:  Dr. Freud was always right and could not be proven wrong.  Would this be true for many human sciences?  Are theories in the human sciences like theories in the natural sciences?  And while one can speak of natural laws, such as the four Laws of Thermodynamics (elegantly explained in a brief book by Peter Atkins), are there any laws of human nature? 

Early pioneers of the human sciences, such as Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim, believed the scientific method could be applied to the study of the behavior of human beings.  But when we begin to think about it, every step of the scientific method will have issues in this new application.     

The human sciences present much food for thought in a TOK class.

What methods can be used?

In the Natural Sciences the scientific method (Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation) can lead to results and insights that can be explained with a scientific theory.  One proceeds inductively from observations to generalizations.  Unvarying regularities in nature are known as physical laws.  A scientific theory (i.e., a scientific explanation) is based on evidence and a chain of reasoning, it is falsifiable and has predictive powers.  As Galileo first discovered in his study of mechanics, mathematics is a very helpful tool for precise measurement and analysis of data.  Theories that fail to explain adequately natural phenomena are discarded and one can witness a complete paradigm shift.  Any currently accepted theory is tentatively accepted as the best explanation at this moment.

Methods in the human sciences, on the other hand, can be divided into two categories:  quantitative methods and qualitative methods.

• Quantitative Methods
• These include experiments, surveys, questionnaires, and tests that provide numerical data that can be analyzed for frequencies and trends.  Mathematics is used as a tool of analysis, but statistics that are produced need interpretation. 
• Qualitative Methods
• These include interviews and case studies.  These studies can provide more textured and nuanced data, but it is not precisely measured. 

Experts will often use both quantitative and qualitative methods.  In the next classes we will explore these methods more closely to understand their purposes and their issues.  Already one can see that linguistic interpretation is integral.

What is TOK? Why is it challenging?

Theory of Knowledge, at first, can be difficult to frame as a course because few students have followed a similar class in the past.  While you have had language and literature, math, science, history, and art classes, you have never had a class on the Theory of Knowledge.  It is new and at times abstract, and these qualities combine to make the experience challenging. 

So, at the beginning of a new academic year, we should review the aims and objectives of the Theory of Knowledge course.  Each student and parent should clearly understand its purpose and basic content.   The course guide outlines five aims: 

1)      develop a fascination with the richness of knowledge as a human endeavour, and an understanding of the empowerment that follows from reflecting upon it

2)      develop an awareness of how knowledge is constructed, critically examined, evaluated and renewed, by communities and individuals

3)      encourage students to reflect on their experiences as learners, in everyday life and in the Diploma Programme, and to make connections between academic disciplines and between thoughts, feelings and actions

4)      encourage an interest in the diversity of ways of thinking and ways of living of individuals and communities, and an awareness of personal and ideological assumptions, including participants’ own

5)      encourage consideration of the responsibilities originating from the relationship between knowledge, the community and the individual as citizen of the world.

The course guide further specifies six outcomes.  That is, after taking the course, the student should be able to:

1)      analyse critically knowledge claims, their underlying assumptions and their implications

2)      generate questions, explanations, conjectures, hypotheses, alternative ideas and possible solutions in response to knowledge issues concerning areas of knowledge, ways of knowing and students’ own experience as learners

3)      demonstrate an understanding of different perspectives on knowledge issues

4)      draw links and make effective comparisons between different approaches to knowledge issues that derive from areas of knowledge, ways of knowing, theoretical positions and cultural values

5)      demonstrate an ability to give a personal, self-aware response to a knowledge issue

6)      formulate and communicate ideas clearly with due regard for accuracy and academic honesty.

In class we will put these aims and outcomes into our own language.  But one can see that TOK is an ambitious course.  In simplest terms, it is a course on thinking critically about our experience as learners and knowers.   We gain an awareness of how we learn and know as human beings in different academic classes and in different cultures.   TOK's fundamental question is, How do I know?   

The TOK Diagram clarifies the scope of the class.  In the center we see the Knower, then the Four Ways of Knowing (Sensory Perception, Emotion, Language, Reason),  then the subjects of Natural Sciences, Mathematics, Art, Human Sciences, History, and Ethics.  Taking the fundamental question of TOK, we examine in class how we know through each of these interacting ways of knowing and subjects. 

 

In short, we take a comparative overview of how knowledge is created.  Each subject creates knowledge in a different manner:

• The Natural Sciences (e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Physics) use the Scientific Method (Observation, Hypothesis, Test) to create knowledge.  Each step of the method can raise knowledge issues.  Key concepts include hypothesis, theory, and law (which is most important?).  Many other questions can be raised, but to take one:  how do sensory perception, emotion, language and reason condition the creation of scientific knowledge?
• Mathematics is a body of knowledge, a system of ideas, and a tool.  It constructs knowledge through axioms and theorems (what are these?).  It uses proofs to demonstrate the validity of the theorems.  How does math become creative?  Is mathematics value-free?
• The Arts use a variety of media for a variety of purposes.  What is the purpose of art?   Is it to create beauty?  Is it meant to teach society?   What should it teach?  Is it for self-expression?  Is there truth in art?  Can we test it?  Is there an ethical dimension to art?  Can art harm an individual or society?
• The Human Sciences (e.g., Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Economics, Education) use the Scientific Method in order to understand human beings and their behavior.  How well can this be done?  Observation and description are central activities, but testing can be difficult or impossible.  If a theory in human science cannot be tested, is it a scientific theory?  Or if a theory has little consistent predictive value (as can happen in economics), why consider it scientific? 
• History is the study of the past.  Why can we not consider this a human science?  Are all perspectives on history equally valid?  Is there a best method in writing history?   Is there an ethical dimension to the writing of history?
• Ethics is the study of how right and wrong are determined.  Are right and wrong purely cultural constructs?  Can there be a universal understanding of right and wrong?  What are the most common moral philosophies?  Does Ethics impact the other areas of knowledge?

Many more knowledge issues can be raised.  There is a sense in which every subject teacher is a TOK teacher because the subject teacher can make you more aware of the subject-defining concepts and methods, as well as the common knowledge issues of that particular way of creating knowledge. 

Last year in the first semester of TOK, you examined the Knower and the Four Ways of Knowing.  In the second semester you investigated Natural Sciences, Math, and Art.   What remains this year are the Human Sciences, History, and Ethics.  Finally, we must complete the course assessment, which is based on an internally assessed presentation and an externally assessed essay.

Why is TOK Challenging?

The IBO describes  the Theory of Knowledge class as its flagship course.  But why do students find it so challenging?  In part, it is challenging because you must take an aerial view of learning and knowing while at the same time peering into yourself for your own convictions and assumptions.   You must compare and contrast how one learns and knows in different areas, noting the advantages and disadvantages of each.  You examine very profound and complex questions.  And this is why  TOK is especially challenging:  it often focuses on open questions that do not have one correct answer. Much of elementary and secondary school education, often for quite proper motives, is focused on obtaining the single correct answer.  TOK is not like this.  There can be many correct answers, or many answers with different degrees of correctness, and one must make a well-reasoned argument, taking into account the counterarguments, in support of one's own conclusion. 

In ltalian licei there is an excellent three year course in the history of philosophy and students have the opportunity to survey the great philosophical thinkers of the past.   The IBO's course in TOK is applied philosophy.  One will find the names of great thinkers and their concepts judiciously present in the course, but the emphasis is consistently on learning to think critically about learning and knowing.  The roots of the IBO's TOK class stretch into the Informal Logic and Critical Thinking movements, but more than a general course in critical thinking, which is required and popular in many American universities, TOK is focused through the IBO's mission statement.  The aim is to develop critical and compassionate members of the global community.

TOK Essay = Argumentative Essay

The Theory of Knowledge Essay can seem like a slippery and intimidating task.  But in reality, once its terms and structure are clarified, it is not difficult to brainstorm, outline, and write a TOK Essay.   Let's look at the IBO's instructions, then define some terms and present suggestions for structure.  Lastly, we'll review the IBO assessment criteria.

IBO Instructions

These are the instructions for the TOK Essay:

Your theory of knowledge essay for examination must be submitted to your teacher for authentication. It must be written on one of the six titles (questions) provided below. You may choose any title, but are recommended to consult with your teacher. Your essay will be marked according to the assessment criteria published in the Theory of Knowledge guide. Remember to centre your essay on knowledge issues and, where appropriate, refer to other parts of your IB programme and to your experiences as a knower. Always justify your statements and provide relevant examples to illustrate your arguments. Pay attention to the implications of your arguments, and remember to consider what can be said against them. If you use external sources, cite them according to a recognized convention.
Note that statements in quotations in these titles are not necessarily authentic: they present a real point of view but may not have been spoken or written by an actual person. It is appropriate to analyse them but it is unnecessary, even unwise, to spend time on researching a context for them.
Examiners mark essays against the title as set. Respond to the title exactly as given; do not alter it in any way.
Your essay must be between 1200 and 1600 words in length.

Comment:  The instructions are clear in stipulating that the student must address one of the assigned titles and write a paper whose personal point of view is well-reasoned and justified with evidence and examples.  There should also be consideration of the implications of your position and what can be said against it.  All of these stipulations are characteristics of the argumentative essay.  Let's look at three basic terms, how they apply in the TOK context, and then proceed with an overview of the structure of an argumentative essay.

Basic Terms

There are three basic terms to understand: claim, issue, and argument.

1. A claim is a statement expressing an opinion or belief that is true or false:  Paris is the most beautiful city in the world.
2. An issue phrases the claim as a question to be examined:  Is Paris the most beautiful city in the world?
3. An argument will examine the issue taking into account evidence and counterarguments.
1. Is Paris is most beautiful city in the world?  I define beauty as.... and I think Paris is the most beautiful because....(evidence:  examples, statistics, personal experience)
2. On the other hand, one can argue that Paris has significant flaws...for example.......(evidence: examples, statistics, personal experience)   
3. Nonetheless, the municipal government is seeking to address these shortcomings and so....  

TOK Essay: Examines a Knowledge Issue

As the IBO instructions make clear, the TOK Essay is an argumentative essay examining a knowledge issue suggested by the six titles published by the IBO. A knowledge issue is a question about the nature of knowledge.   Some examples of knowledge issues:

1. Does one learn more about human behavior from literature or from psychology?
2. Does intuition have a role to play in making ethical decisions?
3. Can one speak of beauty in mathematics?
4. Does art have an ethical dimension?

What you must first do, then, is read the TOK titles, which will be published later in the year, and then brainstorm for knowledge issues and how you can treat one in a personal manner.  We will explore in class different ways of brainstorming, such as concept mapping.  Once you have reflected on the knowedge issue, referring to your TOK notes as necessary, you should write an outline of your paper.  This brings us to structure.

Basic Structure

Let's look at the basic structure of the argumentative essay.  The argumentative essay will present an issue, select a thesis (a point of view) and then argue its validity and truth, taking into account  significant objections.   Like most academic essays, the TOK Essay will have an introduction, body, and conclusion:

• Introduction:  Here present your knowledge issue without simply restating the title given by the IBO.  You can phrase this as an open question.  State your thesis (point of view).  At times, depending on your issue, you may have to define terms.  In any case, the introduction should not be lengthy.   Avoid sweeping statements, solemn appeals to eternal verities, etc. 
• Body:  Here make your argument.  The structure of the argument can vary according to your issue and thesis.  I will outline three possible forms, but there are more.  Also, keep in mind that your issue, the number of premises you have, and personal treatment will determine the number of paragraphs. 
• Form 1: 
• Paragraph 1:  Main Argument (Premise supported by evidence: examples, statistics, personal experience). 
• Paragraph 2: Strongest Objection (Premise supported by evidence: examples, statistics, personal experience).
• Paragraph 3:  Reply to Strongest Objection (Premise supported evidence: [examples, statistics, personal experience).
• Form 2 (compare and contrast in block method)
• Paragraph 1:  Likenesses (Compare, using evidence: examples, statistics, personal experience)
• Paragraph 2:  Differences (Contrast, using evidence: examples, statistics, personal experience)
• Paragraph 3:  Summarize
• Form 3 (compare and contrast in point by point method)
• Paragraph 1:  Point 1 compare/contrast, using evidence: examples, statistics, personal experience
• Paragraph 2:  Point 2 compare/contrast, using evidence: examples, statistics, personal experience
• Paragraph 3:  Point 3 compare/contrast, using evidence: examples, statistics, personal experience
• Conclusion:  Conclusions bring your findings together.  You can summarize cogently, but a good conclusion will have more pizzazz than a dry point by point summary.  Make it interesting and make it clear to the reader why your issue is important.

Nota Bene

The TOK Essay is not difficult to brainstorm, outline, and write.  Keep in mind the IBO titles are divergent questions, which means that there is not one correct answer.  This does not mean that anything goes, but that you must make a well-reasoned and informed argument for your thesis. 

IB Assessment Criteria

During class I will distribute the criteria for assessment and we will examine and discuss them in detail.  The essay is marked out of 40 points.  There are four criteria:

1. Understanding knowledge issues (10 points)
2. Knower's perspective (10 points)
3. Quality of analysis of knowledge issues (10 points)
4. Organization (10 points)

The final TOK grade consists of the externally assessed essay (40 points) and the internally assessed presentation (20 points).  This gives a score out of 60 points, which is then placed within grade boundaries determined by the IBO and a letter grade is assigned. 

The TOK letter grade is then linked in a matrix to the letter grade assessed for the Extended Essay.  A number of points is then attributed (0-3 possible points). 

TOK Presentation Groups

These are the presentation groups.   Presentations begin on February 27.  The Planning document must be given next week.  The next classes will be devoted entirely to planning the Presentation. 

Single Presentations (10 students)

1.       Alessandro

2.       Alessia

3.       Alessio

4.       Chrystel

5.       David

6.       Flavia

7.       Kim

8.       Leopoldo (?)

9.   Mattia

10.   Ryota

Two-Person Presentations (14 students)

1.       Aisling, Chloe

2.       Audrey, Gopika

3.       Benedetta, Flaminia B.

4.       Ginevra D., Ivan

5.       Giulia, Laura

6.       Nikki, Vittorio

7.       Tove, Wendy

Three or More Person Presentations (22 students)

1.       Brando, Chiara, Flaminia A.

2.       Camilla, Flemina, Lucrezia

3.       Caroline, Lexanne, Marija


4.     Chiara V., Ginevra B., Vittoria

5.       Federica, Isabella, Rylie

6.       Friedrich, Francesco, Natnael, Tengiz

7.       Ginevra P., Greta, Virginia

TOTAL STUDENTS: 46

2/6/2012

TOK Presentations

As we have said in class, we will begin the TOK Presentations on February 27.  The planning document for the presentation is due by February 16.

We have gone over the guidelines for the presentation.  Students may work alone or in groups.  Please post the first names and last initial of each member of the group in a comment below!  Thank you!!

Due:  25 January

Of Ethics, the Workplace, the IB Mission Statement

For a few weeks now we have been dwelling upon Ethics.   Perhaps more than any other unit of TOK, Ethics is taught from the inside out.  To avoid a purely academic exercise, one devoid of personal import, one treating ethical systems as if they were maps of purely abstract concepts, we must first become aware of our personal convictions and  instinctive reactions, whatever these may be, however contradictory they may be.   Once aware of these personal convictions, we can begin to examine them in the light of different ethical doctrines.

We have investigated the implications of using religion as a basis for Ethics, and we have had several conversations upon issues raised by specific ethical dilemmas in which we must make a  judgment,  select a course of action, and articulate a justification for our judgment and action.   In discussing the cases we have looked at Egoist (self-interested), Utilitarian, Christian, and Kantian codes of Ethics.      

Is it not interesting that there is no Authoritarian School of Ethics?   In Ethics one must be actively thinking, not following.  Obedience for the purposes of economic survival perhaps can be treated under Egoism.  Recently it has caught the interest of experts concerned with ethics in the workplace.  Improper business practice, always for the cause of greater profit, can have a forceful negative impact on society, leading to great economic duress or a terrible poisoning of the environment.  In the wake of numerous recent scandals many are now demanding the study of business ethics at university.  There is a desire that people be more conscious of their larger ethical responsibilities.  The workplace can take on a factory-like ethos: do your work, don't speak up, don't contradict, don't think: you are an indian, not a chief.  What is the right thing to do (besides read Dilbert)?

In examining the dilemmas our classroom discussion actually became quite heated at times, providing an opportunity to learn that meaningful human discussion requires restraint, a blast of emotion will usually and unsurprisingly summon an opposing blast.  Rather than circumventing discussion, we have learned to exercise more self-restraint  in order to share passionate ideas and feelings.  All the conversations, I think, have been memorable learning experiences.

Most student responses to the dilemmas (and I hasten to say the responses were a little varied, but speaking generally) would probably find echoes from most adults placed in analogous situations.   In fact the continuity with the world of adults made it clear that  conventional ethical norms have been well observed and assimilated.   At times there was generosity towards a friend, perplexity and inertia at the dilemma of a stranger, indifference at an action that was unethical but had no personal impact.   Comparing and contrasting our responses, and looking at them in the light of different ethical codes, is one genuine way for learning to take place, although complex and urgent experience is the better teacher.  Our best learning is life.

Besides conventional ethical dilemmas, we have looked at new issues in Bioethics as well, stimulated by a remarkable and memorable talk given by Paul Root Wolpe to an audience at TED.  We have also watched an instructive session at TED with Michael Sandel, the most popular teacher at Harvard.   Sandel teaches by the case method, first telling a brief story presenting an ethical dilemma and then asking students for their responses.  He guides a soft collision of opinions by asking students to respond to each other and to give the reasons for their judgements, and then he seeks to clarify the ethical principles that underlie the collision of judgements.   One can see his entire course on the internet (two students in our class have watched all the episodes!).

How do we arrive at our values?  How do we justify them?  The IB Mission Statement is marked by carefully selected values:

The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.

To this end the organization works with schools, governments and international organizations to develop challenging programmes of international education and rigorous assessment.

These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.

Let's look at that last paragraph again:  it says other people can be right and not other people are right.  What distinction is being made?  Is the door open to an ethical relativism?  If it were, would this be fine?  If the door is closed, should it be opened?

Due: January 10, 2012

Choices, Choices: Ethics

We have begun Ethics, the area of knowledge concerned with understanding the principles of right and wrong.  How do we really know what is right and wrong?   Is the ethical what we feel is right?  Is it following what everyone does?   Is Ethics the same as religion?   Is there an innate understanding of Ethics?  Do we learn a cultural code that is specific to our society?  If we just follow the law, are we being ethical?   Is authority always right?  Is there a universal system that all acknowledge and respect?  If not, how do we resolve conflicts between analyses of right and wrong?  What ethical issues will we confront in our daily life?

We will confront ethical issues daily.  For example, is it right for animals to suffer to improve human life?  Is capital punishment right?  What should we do if our government goes to war and we do not agree with the justification of the action?  Can a society justify the torture of individuals for the greater good?  What do we do if coworkers are maligning and mobbing a colleague? 

Our first section concerns Christian ethics and we have isolated issues that arise in using a religion as the basis of ethics.  Let us reflect on our own experience.  How has our religion taught us right and wrong?  Has it been effective on a daily basis?  Has it avoided issues that you confront in your life? Do you believe that religious people behave more ethically?  Can religion, in some issues, become a barrier to ethical behavior? 

If we are not religious or do not wish to be so confessional, what do we think about religion and ethics?

Address the questions to your own level of comfort!

Due: November 14 

Learning from which past?

For some students history is fascinating and enthralling, an essential key to the mystery of the present; for others it a dull subject filled with a confusing flurry of names, dates, battles, treaties. It's a tempest in a library.  Yet history is a hotly contested topic in many countries. All agree that history is a vitally important story for the identity of a nation--but whose point of view should be told? Which version should be communicated to the younger generations?

Early this year, for example, a group of conservative Italian parliamentarians loudly attacked the selection of history textbooks commonly used in Italy. They demanded scholastic texts that are impartial and objective in vision. They questioned whether public money should be spent on textbooks that are partisan and, in their view, are indoctrinating the young in leftist ideology. Among the passages reproached as biased are laudatory descriptions of Palmiro Togliatti, Enrico Berlinguer, and Alcide De Gasperi, each an undeniably important statesman in postwar Italy.  The members of parliament branded the textbooks as communist and requested the opening of a formal enquiry.

In the United States, similarly, history can be contested territory. The late Howard Zinn, a professor of political science at Boston University, wrote A People’s History of the United States to give an alternative version to the narrative found in most  American textbooks (you can find the entire work here). He viewed the story as dominated by the economic interests of the wealthy and wrote with consistent sympathy for those who suffered unjustly, the Native Americans, the African slaves, the impoverished immigrants, people in foreign countries (e.g., the Vietnamese), women, and laborers. For the political left, this is the unvarnished and unattractive truth of American history; for the political right, it is only a simple ideological fable pitting the rich against the poor. Who is right? Do you have to decide? Can you ignore the debate?

For one more example, let's look at the UK.  In recent years the United Kingdom has watched with concern a decline in the number of students taking the history GCSE exam.  The curriculum has been revamped, yet critics still think and feel the course is not challenging students and telling the right story.  Nial Ferguson, for instance, wants the narrative to focus on why Europe gains ascendancy after 1500.   The president of the Royal Society termed Ferguson's suggestions ideological; some liberal commentators more bluntly said they were rightwing.

Let's consider some questions.  Can a textbook treating national history avoid charges of patriotic propaganda?  Can history step out of politics and become objective? Can history remove itself from value judgements? If not, whose values should be promoted?  Is there a neutral language and manner for writing history? Are you conscious of your own political ideas? Do you think that you don't have any political ideas? Is it desirable for a student to be wholly apolitical? Have your history classes at Marymount clarified your own sense of cultural and political identity? 

Select a question or two, or formulate a related one of your own, and make a comment. Due: 4 November (coincidentally an important date in Italian history!) 

Education as a Human Science: Sir Ken Robinson

In TOK we are drawing near the end of our Human Science unit.  We have touched upon the Human Science that arguably influences us everyday most powerfully: Education.   How do we learn?  What are different theories of learning?  What are learning styles?  Are we really divided, for instance, into visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners?  Are these innate predispositions or acquired preferences?  What are other kinds of intelligence?  What is the best way to teach?  How do we best measure learning?  Is standardized testing useful or is it a reductive tool to channel students into narrow categories?  Is there a business of standardized testing seeking to objectify a process that is much more dynamic and multidirectional?  Can we, for example, really measure the fluid process of learning to read in tiny graduated steps?  Is homework necessary after seven hours of school?  Should staring into the pictures in a plastic box increasingly occupy the center of the educational process?  Is an authoritarian model of learning most effective?  Do we study too many subjects?  Should we emphasize competition or cooperation? Is religious formation effective in building character and values?

The questions go on and on and on.  Education is a complex human science, a crossroads of developmental psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and more.  Debates on these issues quickly become heated.  The brief RSA video of Sir Ken Robinson raised significant questions.   Urbane and charming, erudite without becoming pedantic, Sir Ken is an educational activist, a man who advocates diversity, creativity, and practicality.   In his talk, which we saw in an abbreviated format (see the entire talk here), he explains how the educational system we use is a child of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.   It was made for a former age, and the stimulating 21^st Century requires a different model that engages contemporary children and, instead of seeking to instill obedience and passivity, even through the use of drugs, prepares them for an ever shifting and dynamic present.

How does one do this?  How would you do this?  What would you change in the process of learning?  Do you know your own learning style or preference?  What would be your ideal learning experience?  More freedom?  More structure?  Fewer subjects?  Less homework?  More work in groups?  More individual work? More variety in assessment to measure learning?  Oral examinations?  More work connected with the world beyond the walls of school? Please do not be facetious in making a comment below. 

Human Science: Experimentation. The Stanford Prison Experiment

A Human Science, we have seen in class, is a strange hybrid beast. Social scientists are imbued with the Scientific Method and its elements of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, the collection of data, analysis of the data, and the formulation of a conclusion regarding the initial hypothesis. With this Method they attempt to study the behavior of human beings, but problems in application can quickly surface. How does one accurately measure human behavior? How can one predict an outcome without influencing it? How can one isolate exactly what causes complex human behavior? Are there ethical considerations that inhibit experimentation?

The problems are thorny. We see them in a famous (or infamous) experiment conducted at Stanford in 1971. Professor Philip Zimbardo created a prison simulation with undergraduate students, male, white middle-class students. He wished to determine whether a brutal and hostile environment determines behavior, or whether an individual's own personal characteristics determine it. Were prisons conditioning people to behave sadistically, or was this sadism an innate characteristic? Is it nature or is it nurture?

In class we watched a BBC documentary on the experiment (the link is also on Edline) and are familiar with its details. After six days Zimbardo shut down the experiment. Please respond to one of the statements below:

• The Stanford Prison Experiment was a daring and creative simulation that revealed that human behavior is substantially determined by environment. If one places several well-adjusted subjects into a degrading authoritarian environment, they quickly lose their sense of personal identity and become utterly submissive. The Scientific Method was well applied for the most part and, whatever the faults in application, these did not compromise the findings. Environment powerfully shapes behavior.  In retrospect we undertand more about the ethics of experimentation and, through subsequent reflection, can apply better guidelines to prevent duress in experiments. We saw the very same phenomenom with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that erupted in 2004. If the military had been aware of the 1971 experiment, that scandal could have been prevented.


• The Stanford Prison Experiment was a poorly conceived work of improvised theater with unprofessional actors. The guards were told at the beginning to abuse the students psychologically, and true prison conditions were not replicated. One student guard admits to acting out a sadistic role seen in Cool Hand Luke. If students and the professor himself were merely playing roles learned from Hollywood movies, there was no true scientific study, it was improvised theater. Moreover, there was no neutral observer, no independent variable, nothing was measured, the results were impressionistic. The conclusions articulated in the documentary seem to manifest Confirmation Bias.  Does one really need to determine that studious well-behaved unconfrontational middle class young men will be submissive in prison? Can one generalize about human beings from such a small group? The naiveté of the study was extraordinary. 

New Year, New Challenges

In May, having received your high school diploma, you will stand on the lawn and toss your tasseled blue or white academic caps spinning into the air and you will rejoice that one long stretch of schooling has finished. Rowdy cheers, tears, laughter, hugs.

But there is still a lot of work for the next nine months.

In TOK this means finishing the curriculum (Social Sciences, History, Ethics), writing the TOK Essay (topics already posted on Edline), and giving the TOK Presentation. All of this we will introduce and begin to address in our first class. It also means giving as much as we can of ourselves in class discussions, listening actively, responding appropriately, weighing what we hear and say.

Before we begin, let's look again at the Mission Statement of the International Baccalaureate Organization:

The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable, and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.
To this end the organization works with schools, governments, and international organizations to develop challenging programmes of international education and rigorous assessment.
These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate, and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with all their differences, can also be right.

Let's take a look at the last paragraph. What does this paragraph mean to you? Please write a brief reflection of about 200 words.

Art: What has been the most powerful experience for me?

Art as a way of knowing is an enormous topic. Living in a city like Rome that teems with masterpieces can give another dimension to our classroom discussion. Whether we wish to look at a Neolithic fertility goddess, an Egyptian obelisk from the time of Ramses the Great, an Assyrian battle relief, a Hellenistic bronze of a beaten boxer, an Etruscan terracotta statue of a deity, a Roman imperial portrait, the Colosseum, the Pantheon, a medieval church and its mosaics, a graceful Renaissance masterpiece by Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, or Michelangelo, a haunting biblical scene by Caravaggio, an elegant and dynamic sculpture by Bernini, the cooler Neoclassical beauty of a Canova statue, the patriotic scenes of the painters of the Risorgimento, the abstractions of the Futurists or Rationalists, the thought-provoking contemporary architectural works of Zaha Hadid, Richard Meier, Renzo Piano, or Massimiliano Fuksas---Rome has these and much, much more. It's a tough act to beat.

And if we think of the poets and other writers who have lived or sojourned here, the list continues. Picking up the list from after 1800, we can mention Leopardi, Keats, Byron, Shelley, James Joyce, Hans Christian Andersen, Alberto Moravia, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Dacia Maraini, and the list can go on and on.

And if we think of film, the list continues: Rossellini, De Sica, Visconti, Passolini, Fellini, Sergio Leone, Elio Petri...

But if we ask what work of art has been most important to you, how would you respond? Would it be a work from the past? Would it be a work of literature, a dance performance, a song, a film, a cartoon, a painting, a sculpture, a building? What makes it so powerful to you? Is it the emotion? Is it an insight into the human condition? Was it something else?

Please answer these last questions in an entry below of about 400 words. This is due at the beginning of class on May 20.

Math / Presentations

It has been a while since we have posted! In the intervening weeks--which encompassed the ten day hiatus of Easter vacation--we have done the Mathematics unit and again begun to work on presentations. In the Mathematics unit we examined the axiom-theorem structure which the Greeks invented and how logic operates in this system. We also made connections between math and the arts. For example, we looked at fractals and watched a brief video of Benoit Mandelbrot, their creator/discoverer. Students in groups also presented different math/art topics including the Golden Section, the art of M.C. Escher, Linear Perspective, and the relationship of math to music that in the West began with Pythagoras.
We looked at how math can be creative. Finally we spoke of how Kurt Goedel (a friend of Einstein) proved that not all mathematical truth can be proven, that is, that there are true theorems that cannot be proven from the given axioms, a curious situation for a discipline that is so rigorous and precise.
With all this done, it is time to turn our attention to presentations. Could someone from each group record the real-life situation and the knowledge issue that have been selected. What problems have you encountered? Sign with the initials of the people in the group.

Article and a Knowledge Issue

The crucial and most difficult part of TOK, arguably, is making the leap to seeing Knowledge Issues in daily life. As a part of the course work, this skill becomes very important for internal and external assessment. Like any skill, it becomes easier with habitual practice.

This week each student brought in an article and briefly discussed a knowledge issue present in the article. I was continually impressed by the creativity of the selections, and how personal each choice was. Could each of you summarize your article in one or two sentences (not a paragraph!) and record in the form of an open question the knowledge issue you have found.

Due: 25 March

Variety in Presentations!

The TOK Presentation is a not an easy task, it cannot be thrown together after reading something hurriedly. It must be personal, well-researched and well-structured, addressing a real-life situation and focussing on the inherent knowledge issues.

The Guide to the course says that "presentations may take many forms, such as lectures, skits, simulations, games, dramatized readings, interviews or debates. Students may use supporting materials such as videos, MS Powerpoint presentations, overhead projections, posters, questionnaires, recordings of songs or interviews, costumes or props. Under no circumstances, however, should the presentation be simply an essay read aloud to the class" (page 47).

Keeping this in mind, be creative! Take a look at this film on teen dating made by a group of TOK students in California. It is a real-life situation and the students are focussing on Knowledge Issues. Write a reaction (250 words) to the short video below by Monday, March 21.